III' JK 273 
te !.W2 
|ty (Copy 1 



A STOLEN 
GOVERNMENT 



By HERMAN B. WALKER 



PUBLISHED AND COPYRIGHTED BY 

THE PEOPLE'S LOBBY OF NEW JERSEY 
19 8 



PRICE, TEN CENTS 



* "TW^T O matter how bad your laws may be, if the people 
X^ have the power to make them good they will make 
them good, and the most important provision that 
you can have is a provision that places in the hands of the 
people pov/er to correct the Constitution and make it keep 
pace with progress and intelligence, and the initiative and ref- 
erendum are the besi things that we have found so far to 
bring the government near to the people." — Williair Jennings 
Bryan. 

"To-day, as in 1776, the establishment of political liberty 
is the dominant issue. Why should voters choose between 
rulers when they can at onc2 become the sovereign power?" 
— American Federation of Labor. 

"The Maine Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church heartily indorses the principles of the initiative and 
referendum. Ths secretary is directed to prepare a memorial 
in favor of the initiative and referendum and send it to the 
Maine Legislature of 1907." — Resolutions adopted April 15, 
1905. 

"Resolved, That v/e heartily endorse the non-partisan 
movement for the extension of the use of the referendum, and 
rccojnmend the subject to the careful consideration of all the 
farmers in all our states." — National Grange, Patrons of 
Husbandry. 

Constitutional amendments fcv the adoption of the Initia- 
tive and Referendum have been approved by the legislatures, 
and are to be submitted to a vote of the people this year in 
Ohio, Maine and North Dakota. States that have adopted 
the initiative and referendum, in v/hole or part, are: Oregon, 
South Dakota, Utah, Montana, California, Illinois, Iowa, Del- 
av/are and Texas. 



"The remedy for the evils of democracy is more dem= 
mocracy . ' ' — De Tocqueville. 



A STOLEN 
GOVERNMENT 



HOW TO RESTORE IT, AND TO THWART 
FURTHER EMBEZZLEMENT OF POWER, 
THROUGH THE ADVISORY INITIATIVE, 
OR PUBLIC OPINION LAW :: :: :: 




db 



-By 



HERMAN B. WALKER 
li 



"Government of the people, by the people, and for the 
people." — Abraham Lincoln. 



^^< 




HERMAN B. WALKER 












The Advisory Initiative. 



t^ 



As proposed by the People's Lobby, the Advisory Initia- What It Is 
tive, or Public Opinion Law, is designed to have important 
State questions submitted to a popular vote, in cases where 
the Legislature fails or refuses to act. 



Under the proposed plan ten per cent of the voters of the 
State may petition the Legislature for the passage of any bill 
or resolution, or the submission of any proposed amendment 
to the State Constitution. 

Unless the measure proposed is passed by the Legisla-' 
ture without change or amendment, and is approved by the 
Governor, the question of its adoption is referred to a vote 
of the people at the next election, for the purpose of having- the 
Legislature and the Governor instructed by an expression of 
public opinion. 

The Legislature, it is proposed, may offer an alternative 
or competing measure, which shall be voted on at the same 
election. In such case, the voters may express their preference 
for one measure or the other, or may vote against both. 

Measures so submitted are to be voted on at general elec- 
tions onlv, and on a separate ballot. 

A copy of each measure to be voted on, and a facsimile 
of the- ballot, with instructions for votiu"- it, are to be given 
to each voter who registers for the election. 

When a majority of the votes cast for and against any 
measure in an}- election are in its favor, the Legislature at its 
next session must again consider and vote on the passage of 
the bill or resolution, without change or amendment. 

The bill does not propose taking any power out of the 
hands of the Legislature. It does provide a means for letting 
the voters tell the Legislature, by a separate vote on any ques- 
tion, what the public opinion o^i such question may be. 



People to 

Create 

Issues 



Vote on 
Separate 
Ballots 



Legislature 
Must Vote 
Again 



Under the Public Opinion Law, the people would have 
the power to force such consideration of such issues as are 
demanded by the public interests, b\' taking the questions out of 
party politics and out of the hands of the politicians. 



Destroys 

Bossism and 

Corporation 

Rule 



With this law in force, the people would be able to com- 
pel consideration of questions the bosses and corporations are 
now able to have ignored, evaded or sidetracked. 

It will give the conscientious legislator a chance to vote 
intelligently and in accordance with the wishes of the people 
on fundamental and close questions. 

It will force the tricky, careless or subservient legislator 
to act in accordance with public opinion, instead of at the 
behest of private and selfish interests. 



A Stolen Government. 



Under our form of government, that of a democratic re- 
public, we elect representatives to make and enforce the laws. 
Matters of routine management of public affairs are left to 
their discretion. On fundamental and close questions, and on 
proposed changes or reforms in public policy, the representa- 
tives are instructed through the medium of party platforms 
and pledges or by referendum voting. 

This is the theory of our representative government svstem, 
as it exists to-day. In theory, it is perfect. In practice, it does 
not always work perfectly. 



The Theory 

of 

R epresentative 

Government 



It happens now and then that some mysterious force or 
influence or misunderstanding gets between the representative 
and the voter. Because of some difficulty which neither quite 
understands, the one is unable to make clear exactly what he 
wants done, and the other fails to do it. 

In theory, the machinery of elections is designed to en- 
able the voter the fullest freedom and greatest latitude in se- 
lecting for office men who will carry out his wishes and in- 
structions. 

In practice the ooeration of the election machinery fre- 
quently shows that the men who constructed it did not design it 
for that purpose. 

With perfect election machinery there would be no trouble 
for the people to elect representatives who would make and 
enforce such laws as the people want made and enforced. 

Too often the result of elections and the proc:_dings in 
legislative bodies now show that the people have been unable 
to accomplish the purpose they wanted to accomplish. In- 
stead of having a direct and potent voice in policies of govern- 
ment, the people are kept busy voting to fill unimportant 
offices, and while they are thus occupied a few representatives 
of special interests are able to control legislation and so fill the 
important offices by appointment. 



Fla"ws in the 
System 



6 A STOLEN GOVERNMENT 

Effects of the There is hardly a legislative body in the State whose ac- 

tions do not at some time reflect the pernicious effect of this 
System perversion of representative government; this juggling with the 
election machinery. 

Laws are forced upon the people which the majority do 
not want. 

Reforms demanded by the people are ignored, defeated, 
sidetracked or emasculated. 

Laws heralded with much blowing of horns and beating of 
tom-toms as great popular reforms turn out, after trial, to be 
something entirely different fromi what they were supposed 
to be. 

K x> V*- 1 Here are a few instances of how the system works, or 

A l-oliticai f,^jjg ^Q ^^.^j.j,^ jj^ ^^^^ Jersey: 

Tower ^ demand for the closing of dives, wiping out of graft 

of Babel and corruption and enforcement of the laws against crime 
has resulted in agitation for sumptuary regulation. 

An effort to overthrow bossism and corporation rule has 
resulted in a revival of ancient Blue Laws restricting personal 
liberty. 

Laws intended to make railroads pay more taxes primarily 
result in raising the taxes of small hom.e-owners. 

A demand by the people for the right to nominate their 
own party candidates for office is misunderstood by the Legisla- 
ture as being a demand for direct nominations of local officers 
only. 

A demand that the people shall be allowed to participate 
directly in the nomination of party candidates for the Presi- 
dency is sidetracked to boost the personal ambition of a candi- 
date for the Vice-Presidency. 

A demand for home rule in municipal affairs is misunder- 
stood by a Governor as meaning that he should have the power 
to remove municipal officers elected by the people. 

A public demand that watered stocks and bonds of utility 
companies shall not be longer tolerated as an excuse for poor 
service and high rates is so misunderstood by some reformers 
that they propose as a remedy the taxing of the watered se- 
curities, thus providing an excuse for poorer service and 
higher rates. 



Missing 



What is wrong? 
A Wheel Simply this : There is a wheel missing in the election 

machiner}'. 

Representative government is not a failure. 
It is the best system of government yet devised. 
It breaks down and fails only when it ceases to be repre- 
sentative. 



HOW TO RESTORE IT 



It ceases to be representative when an election system, in- 
stead of making it simple and easj^ for the people to express 
^eir wants and elect men who will do what they want done, 
is so designed and manipulated as to make it easy to thwart the 
popular will. 

This is what has happened in New Jersey. 

The most beautiful and expensive watch ever made won't 
keep time without a balance wheel. 

The trouble with representative government in our own and 
other states is that when the men who devised the system did 
their work, they left out the balance wheel. 

The Advisory Initiative will supply the missing balance 
wheel in our governmental machinery. 

Before the towns and cities grew too big for such a system, 
our New England forefathers in government decided their 
public questions in town meetings. 

They elected selectmen to enforce the laws, to keep the 
books, to collect and pay out the public monies, and to do the 
routine business. 

When the question of how much taxes was to be raised, 
or some other important issue was to be decided, all the voters 
met in town meeting, talked it out and settled the question by 
a show of hands. 

The initiative and referendum applies the town meeting 
idea to latter day conditions and government. 

As the country became more populous,, the town meeting 
plan was outgrown. It became necessary to leave more and 
more of the details of public business to be attended to and 
decided by representatives — selectmen, members of Legisla- 
tures and Congressmen. 

In the early political life of the colonies and states, the 
people elected representatives, but when a big question or a 
close question was to be decided, thej' held meetings, took a 
vote, and instructed the representatives as to how they were 
to vote on the question in the Legislature or in Congress. 

This right of the people to instruct their representatives 
has never been abrogated, and has never been successfully de- 
nied, although it has been frequently forgotten. 

Constitutions have been framed for the main purpose of 
limiting the powers of the representatives in the legislative, 
executive and judicial branches of the government. 

No constitution has ever denied the inherent right of the 
people to control their government, to change and reform it as 
they may desire, and to instruct their representatives as to 
their wislies. 

Clever maiipulation of Constitutional and statutory laws 
has made it difficult for the people to assert these rights. 



The Town 

Meeting 

System 



Legislative 

Powers 

Limited 



8 



A STOLEN GOVERNMENT 



When the Federal constitution was drafted several of the 
states refused to approve it because it did not guard these 
rights of the people and place limitations upon the powers 
of the representatives. 

Congress finally promised to provide a bill of rights, and 
the first ten amendments are the result of this promise. 

Two of tnese amendments are as follows : 

"The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights 
shall not be construed to denying or disparage others, re= 

tained by the people." — Article IX, United States Constitiitioti. 

" The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved 
to the states respectively or to the peop\e.^^— -Article X, 
United States Constitution. 

The Right to _ Among the rights reserved to the people is that of instruct- 
Instruct '"S their representatives. 

Delaware is the only State in the Union where the people 
have delegated the power of amending their Constitution. 

In New Jersey the people retain the right to say whether 
or not a constitutional amendment shall be adopted, but have 
no power, e.xccpt that contained in the inherent right to in- 
struct representatives, to say what proposed amendments shall 
be submitted to a vote. 

The Advisory Initiative will give the people of New Jersey 
the means of exercising this reserved power to instruct the 
Legislature as to what constitutional amendments shall be pro- 
posed. 

In Massachusetts the people rejected the first State Con- 
stitution proposed because it contained no limitations upon the 
powers of the Legislature — no bill of rights. 

In the first United States Congress the Federalist party, 
after a long debate, defeated this proposed paragraph in the 
bill of rights for the Federal constitution : 

"The right of the people to instruct their representatives 
shall never be infringed." 

Despite this action of the Federalists, Congress has never 
attempted to infringe the people's right to instruct representa- 
tives. 



Sim'l Adims's 
Declaration 



ITow firmly the early American citizens adhered to this 
principle and guarded this right is shown by tlie old records. 

In the Boston Town records of 1764 it is recited that 
Samuel Adams delivered the people's instructions to the rep- 
'rcsentativcs, stating the following general principle: 

"The townsmen have delegated to you the power of acting 
in their public concerns in general as your prudence may di- 
rect you, always reserving to themselves the constitutional 



HOW TO RESTORE IT 



right of expressing their mind and giving you such instruc- 
tion upon particular matters as they at any time may judge 
proper." 

Old records of Massachusetts' towns are full of such in- 
structions. 

In North Carolina the right of the people to instruct their 
representatives has been adhered to from the first. Here are 
two instances of such instructions given : 

"At a general conference of the inhabitants of Mecklen- 
berg assembled at the Court House on the first of November, 
1776, for the express purpose of drawing up instructions for 
the. present Representatives in Congress, the following were 
agreed to by the assent of the people present, and ordered to be 
signed by John M. Alexander, chairman chosen to preside for 
the day in such conference." (Vol. 10, Colonial Records of 
North Carolina, 870 a.). Then followed eighteen paragraphs 
of instructions as to what the attitude and vote of the represen- 
tatives should be upon pending questions of public policy. 

"We, the people of Orange county, who have chosen you 
to represent us in the next Congress of Representatives dele- 
gated by the people of this State, require you to take notice 
that the following are our instructions to you, which you are 
required to follow in every particular with strictest regard." — 
(Vol. 10, Colonial Records of North Carolina, 870 f.). 

Not only were the delegates from the several states to the 
Continental Congress instructed as to their attitude and vote on 
important questions, but they were also subject to the recall. — 
See Articles of Federation. 

The right to instruct is specificallv reserved in the North 
Carolina constitution, and has never been questioned or suc- 
cessfully opposed. 

In 1816 Thomas Jefiferson wrote to John Taylor : 
"Your book settles unanswerably the right of instructing 
representatives, and their duty to obey." 

The right of the people to reform their government, and 
to instruct their representatives as to their wishes, is dearly 
set forth in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of New 
Jersey, as follows : 

"All political power is inherent in the people. Qovern= 
ment is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of 
the people, and they have the right to alter or reform the 
same whenever the public good may require it."— ^r/. I, 
Par. 2, State Constitiition. 

" The people shall have the right * * * ^o make 
known their opinions to their representatives, and to petition 
for redress of grievances." — Art. 1, Par. 18, State Constitutioti. 



An American 
Principle 



A'Jeffersonian 
Doctrine 

New^ Jersey's 

BiU 

of Rights 



10 



A STOLEN GOVERNMENT 



The Constitution is too often stretched and distorted to 
thwart the will of the people and give comfort and aid -to their 
enemies. It is time its plain meaning and purpose were" in- 
voked to protect the public interests and give direct force to the 
people's right to manage their own government. 



Instruction 

t)y Political 

Parties 



For a hundred years the right of the people to instruct their 
representatives has been recognized by all political parties. 
There is no other purpose, reason or excuse for the adoption of 
party platforms. 

The parties write into their platforms declarations for and 
against certain proposed public policies. The party candidate is 
considered to be pledsred to the policies or principles declared 
for in the platform of his party. If he is elected, the theory 
is that a majority of the people favor his party's policies, as 
outlined in the platform, and that the representative is under 
instructions to seek to enact these principles and policies into 
law. If he does not do so, he is considered to have broken 
faith with the party and with the people. 

This system of securing expression of public opinion and 
instructing representatives, however, has proved to be crude, 
complicated and uncertain. 



Issues Ignored 

or 

Sidetracked 



The party platforms are made by a few politicians, who 
put into them such declarations as they believe or hope will 
win votes for the party candidates, and who ignore such ques- 
tions and issues as they for any reason do not want agitated 
or discussed. 

When an important question is ignored in the party plat- 
forms there is no effective method for making it an issue. The 
mass of the people have no election machinery they can use to 
force issues. 



Curbing the A party platform may declare for a principle or policy ap- 

Politicians proved by a majority of the voters, but a Legislature may defeat 

the main purpose of the desired reform by passing a law that 

keeps the letter of the pledge only, and does not go to the root 

of the evil aimed at. 

The Advisory Initiative, or Public Opinion Law, will enable 
the mass of the people to create and force issues without regard 
to the wishes or attitude of the politicians. It will enable the 
majority of the voters to pass upon both the form and substance 
of measures when the Legislature is suspected of bad faith. 



A Theory 

That Doesn't 

'Work 



If the people elect a Republican Governor and Legislature 
in any year, the verdict at the polls is interpreted by the leaders 
of the party placed in power as meaning that all the voters who 
voted for the Republican nominees are in favor of everything 



HOW TO RBSTORB IT 



11 



contained in the Republican platform, opposed to all the prop- 
ositions contained in the platforms of all other parties, and not 
interested in any other questions or issues. 

This interpretation of election results seldom holds true. 

It may be that both the big parties have ignored in their 
platforms the questions m which a mjajority of the voters are 
most deeply interested. 

It may be that partisan prejudice, the personality of candi- 
dates, or other influences, have induced voters to give their 
ballots to the support of candidates with whose party platform 
they are little in sympathy, and to defeat candidates. with whose 
party platforms they are much more in sympathy. 



Suppose, as an illustration of how the voter's mind is 
confused and his purpose misinterpreted under the present 
system, that in any year the platform of the two great parties 
in New Jersey may be made up of the following declarations : 



Republican Platform. 

1. For local option in the li- 
censing of saloons. 

2. For popular vote for United 
States Senators. 

3. For voting machines. 

4. For State regulation of pub- 
lic utilities. 

5. For municipal home rule. 



Democratic Platform. 

1. For Prohibition of the liquor 
traffic. 

2. For direct primaries. 

3. For the Massachusetts' bal- 
lot. 

4. For municipal ownership of 
public utilities. 

5. For insurance reforms. 



If, after these platforms are made, the Democratic party 
nominates for Governor a man of objectionable habits and 
bad reputation, and the Republican part}^ nominates a candidate 
of attractive personality and good character, the result will 
probably be that a majority of the voters of the State will 
cast their ballots for the man thej^ consider the better of the 
two candidates, entirely because of his personality, and regard- 
less of the platform utterances. 

Suppose, though, that the two candidates named for Gov- 
ernor are of equall}^ good or equally bad habits and character, 
so that their personality is not a deciding factor in the elec- 
tion. Still partisan prejudice or affiliation may lead a majority 
of the voters to cast their ballots for one candidate or the 
other, again without regard for the platforms. 

In either of these two supposed cases, the party platforms 
have been of little meaning. It does not follow, in either in- 
stance, that the election of the Republican candidates has been 
an endorsement by a majority of the voters of all the principles 
and policies declared for in the Republican platform, or a repudi- 
ation of all the principles and policies declared for in the 
Democratic platform. 

Suppose, even, that personality of candidates and partisan- 
ship have not been sufficiently considered bv the voters to have 



The Party 

Platform 

Puzzle 



A Choice of 



12 A STOLEN GOVERNMENT 

affected the result of the election, and that the difference in the 
issues presented by the two party platforms has been the 
deciding test in the voting. What has happened? 

It is authenticated history that when a liquor issue is for 
any reason injected into a State campaign, it immediately be- 
comes paramount. 

In the campaign here supposed the liquor question has been 
made the paramount issue. 

Under such conditions suppose the case of an intelligent 
and independent voter who desires to cast his ballot con- 
Evils scientiously and effectively. 

He is opposed to State prohibition, possibly, and favors local 
option, either because he believes in the idea or considers it 
less repugnant than the alternative proposition. 

He may be opposed to any change in the liquor laws, but 
more opposed to prohioition than to local option. 

Here is the problem with which he is faced : 

If he votes for the Republican candidate, who stands for 
local option, he will be counted as favoring that plan, although 
he is really opposed to it, and his vote will also be counted as 
against all the other propositions contained in the Democratic 
platform and in favor of all the proposals contained in the Re- 
publican platform. 

If he votes the Republican ticket under such conditions, for- 
instance, his vote will be counted as against direct primaries, 
although he may favor that plan, and in favor of voting ma- 
chines, to which he may be opposed. 

He may greatly favor municipal home rule, but if he votes 
for the Republican candidates, in order to give his endorse- 
ment to home rule, he must be counted as opposing municipal 
ownership, in which he believes. 

He may be in favor of every proposition contained in the 
Democratic platform except prohibition, and emphatically op- 
posed to that, or he may ue for prohibition and opposed to most 
of the other Democratic propositins. 

Under such circumstances, what is the independent, intelli- 
gent and conscientious voter to do? 

Of course he may, if he desires, vote for the candidates 
of some minor party whose platform more nearly accords with 
his ideas, if he can find such a one. But he probably won't. 
Aside from any question of partisan prejudice, personal inter- 
est or affiliation, he is probably a sensible, hard-headed citizen 
who knows that either the Republican or Democratic candi- 
dates will be elected, and who has the aversion of most Am- 
erican citizens to "throwing away" his vote. He wants to make 
his ballot count as more than a protest. 

In a campaign in which such conditions, or others in any 
way approaching them, are presented, is it not apparent that 



HOPV TO REST ORB IT 



13 



the .best the voter can do in recording his opinion concerning 
the issues at stake, and the most he can do, is to make a choice 
of two evils by voting for the candidates of that party whose 
platform is least objectionable to him? 

Is it not clear that however he votes, his bahot must be 
counted as favoring policies to which he is opposed, and as 
in opposition to propositions with which he is in sympathy? 

The Public Opinion bill, by permitting the vote to be taken 
separately on candidates and questions, will enable the voter to 
support the candidate he personally favors, or to vote his 
party ticket and at the same time indicate clearly his opinion on 
policies and measures of importance. 

The Public Opinion Law will take the liquor question out 
of State politics. 

Here are some of the propositions being agitated in con- 
nection with this question : 

State prohibition. 

Local option, which is local prohibition. 

Enforcement of Sunday laws. 

Sunday selling, either by repeal of the Blue Laws or 
through municipal home rule on the question. 

High license. 

Low license. ' 

Sale of beer and light wines without license. 

Both party platforms, and most of the party nominees 
last fall straddled the whole question. 

The Legislature is unable to determine the question. 

If any legislator takes a stand not in harmony with the 
wishes of a majority of his constituents, he probably sacri- 
fices his political future. 

It is not a question any man or set of men can be justified 
in deciding according to their personal ideas and prejudices. 

While there are objections to permitting even a majority 
vote to decide all phases of the question, certainly it is better 
for the majority to decide than for the minority to rule. 

If the Public Opinion Law had been in existence last year 
the Legislature would now have something approaching exact 
information as to what the majority of the people want in the 
regulation of the liquor traffic, instead of being confronted with 
an insoluble problem. Now legislators have to guess at what the 
majority wants, and the chances are they will guess wrong. 

Under the Public Opinion Law, had it been in effect, the 
local option advocates, the home rule advocates, the Sunday 
opening advocates, and possibly others, would have filed 
petitions with the Legislature last year, each set of petitioners 
proposing a measure designed to put into effect their partic- 
ular views on the subject. If the Legislature had refused to 
pass any of these bills, they would all have been submitted to 
a popular vote at the electio^i in November. If one bill 



Public 
Opinion and 
the Liquor 
Ouestion 



14 



A STOLEN GOVERNMENT 



had passed the Legislature, all the others submitted would have 
been ordered a vote. 

There would have been a separate expression of opinion on 
each proposition, entirely separated from any partisanship or 
consideration of candidates, and the Legislature would know 
the sentiment of the people of the State on this subject, and be 
able to legislate accordingly. 



Extremists 

and Special 

Interests 



One objection made to the proposed law is the assertion 
that it will be abused by all sorts of extremists and selfish 
interests proposing all sorts of radical and selfish questions and 
measures to be voted on. 

Even if there were ground for belief that such would be 
the case, little harm would be done. There would be no 
cause for alarm or fear. Paltry, extreme or dishonest propo- 
sitions would not be likely to meet with the favor of the voters. 
It is much easier to pass a dishonest or unfair measure in a 
small legislative body than to defend it successfully in a long 
campaign of publicity before the people and secure for it the 
support and votes of a majority of the voters of the State. 

No unreasonable measure, however, would be likely to be 
presented to the Legislature under the Public Opinion Law, 
for the main reason that ten per cent, of the voters of the State, 
or more than 40,000 citizens, would have to be induced to sign 
petitions before the measure would have standing. This con- 
sideration disposes at once of any fear of abuse of the law by 
cranks, faddists or crooks. 

While the bill requires the Legislature, if it passes a meas- 
ure proposed by petition, to pass it without alteration or amend- 
ment, it is also provided that the Legislature, or either house, 
may submit to a vote at the same election at which any such 
measure is submitted, an alternative or competing measure 
which is considered better or more expedient. In such a case 
the voters would express their choice between the two propo- 
sitions, or vote against both. 



Full Publicity 

for 

Questions 



The bill provides that measures proposed by initiative pe- 
tition shall be submitted to a vote at general elections only. 
This obviates the expense incurred by special elections, and 
assures a larger vote on the questions. It requires that ninety 
days shall always intervene between the ordering of an elec- 
tion on any measure and the day of the voting. 

The plan for submitting measures to the Legislature be- 
fore they go to a popular vote gives opportunity for their full 
consideration and discussion before that body. Add to this the 
publicity to be obtained in a three month's campaign preceding the 
balloting on any measure the Legislature fails or refuses to 
pass, and the requirement that a copy of each measure to be 
voted oh and a facsimile of the official ballot with instructions 



HOW TO RBSTORB IT 



15 



for voting it, are to be placed in the hands of each voter who 
registers for the election, and there is assured a thorough public 
education and an intelligent vote on the question. 

We now have in our State the compulsory referendum, 
frequently resorted to. 

Experience with referendum voting in New Jersey and 
elsewhere has demonstrated that the average citizen will vote 
on public questions, and vote intelligent!}^, when he is given a 
chance to understand what the voting is about, and when the 
questions submitted are of real public importance. 

The provisions of the Public Opinion bill offer every voter 
a chance to understand all questions submitted. 

The fact that no measure can be proposed that is not fa- 
vored by more than 40,000 citizens, makes it certain that the 
questions submitted will be of real importance and backed by 
a live public interest. 

While there is every reason to believe that under such 
conditions real public interest would be manifested in the 
voting on questions and measures, it is not suggested that all 
voters would vote on all measures submitted under the Public 
Opinion Law. 

On the contrary, the voting on measures on a separate bal- 
lot would operate, as it has elsewhere, to automatically dis- 
franchise the ignorant, indifferent and careless voter. Only 
the voter intelligently informed concerning the questions at 
issue, and really interested in them, would take the trouble to 
vote. The result would be, not a big vote cast largely by un- 
thinking, ignorant or corrupt voters, but an intelligent ex- 
pression of opinion by the intelligent voters of the State. 

The fact that a smaller vote is usually cast in the ballotmg 
on questions than in the balloting on candidates, _ is an argu- 
ment in favor of, and not against, referendum voting. 

Under the present system the Legislature decides -what ques- 
tion shall be voted upon. The. compulsory referendum has 
worked poorly, for three reasons : 

Questions svibmitted by the Legislature have not been of 
such importance as to arouse public interest; 

There has not been provision for such publicity and public 
discussion as enabled the voters to clearly understand the propo- 
sition submitted ; or. 

The question has been submitted at a special or general elec- 
tion with so little preliminary notice that the voters have not 
been generally aware of such a vote being proposed. 

The provision of the proposed law prohibiting the circu- 
lation of official ballots outside the polling places, assures an 
honest vote and removes, as 4av as possible, the incentive and 



Danger of 

Apathy 

Removed 



Disfranchises 
the 

Careless 
Voter 



Compulsory 
Referendum 
a Failure 



Honest Voting 
Assured 



16 



A STOLEN GOVERNMENT 



Legislature's 

Powers Not 

Diminished 



What the Law 

Would 

Accomplish 



opportunity for vote-buying, undue influence and other cor- 
ruption on the balloting. 

The Public Opinion Law, or Advisory Initiative, is distin- 
guished from the Initiative and Referendum, or Direct Legisla- 
tion, in that the latter give to the people the power to 
make laws for themselves and to veto the acts of the Legisla- 
ture by a direct vote at the polls. The Advisory Initiative, 
as its name suggests, provides only for an expression of public 
opinion by which the people may advise and instruct the legis- 
lators. 

Under the Public Opinion Law, ten per cent, of the voters, 
by petition, would suggest a bill to the Legislature. If it were 
not passed as proposed, the voters would, at the next election, 
express their opinion on the measure by a separate and direct 
vote, and it would then be left to the legislators to act as they 
might please. The only difference, but the vital difference, is 
that the legislators would know what the people wanted. 

There would not be taken from the Legislature, under the 
proposed law, any powers the people have heretofore dele- 
gated to that body. 

After a measure was approved by the people at any elec- 
tion, the Legislature would still retain discretionjiry power to 
pass or defeat it, as the members saw fit. In voting on the 
measure, however, the Leeislature would not have the power 
to amend or change its provisions. 

If, after knowing public opinion on the subject, the legis- 
lators saw fit to refuse to pass a law demanded by the people, 
they would have an entire right to do so. 

A legislator who voted against a measure the people had 
approved at the polls, however, would know just where he 
stood in so doing. He would know that he was standing 
against public opinion — refusing to obey instructions — and the 
people would know he had failed to respect their wishes and 
instruction. 

The probable result of such a failure to obey instructions 
would be the retirement of such a legislator to private life at 
the first opportunity the people had for doing so, and the elec- 
tion in his place of a man who would respect public opinion. 

There would be few instances where legislators would refuse 
to obey instructions, however, as the people would probably elect 
only such candidates as promised before election to obey the pub- 
lic mandate. 

Under the proposed law questions would be considered 
and decided on their merits, as the discussion and vote would 
be divorced from partisanship and not influenced by the per- 
sonality of candidates. 

The voter would be enabled to express his opinion on im- 
portant policies and measures without having to vote against 



HOW TO RESTORE IT 



17 



the candidates of his party, if he happened to disagree with 
some part of his party's platform. 

It would remove the confusion that now exists in the 
mind of the voter confronted with the necessity for making a 
choice between two such party platforms as those previously 
described. 

It would tend to discourage tricky legislators who often 
seek to silence public clamor by passing imperfect, dishonest 
or inefifective laws under the pretence of granting popular re- 
forms. 

It would enable the mass of the people to make the issues, 
dethrone the party bosses, destroy the influence of corpora- 
tions and special interests, make it impossible for the politi- 
cians to ignore, evade or sidetrack important reforms, and 
substitute real representative government for machine rule. 

Naturally there is opoosition to the passage of the Public 
Opinion bill. Against it will be found : 

Every party boss and mere machine politician who fears 
loss of power, patronage and campaign contributions. 

Every corporation that is over-charging or oppressing the 
people. 

Every holder or beneficiary of special privilege. 

Every tax-shirker and every person or corporation now 
escaping taxation through unfair exemptions. 

Every grafter and boodlcr. 

Every office-holder and reformer who wants to make and 
enforce such laws as he thinks the people should have, instead 
of such laws as the people want. 

The party bosses and political time-servers know that if 
the people can make and force issues, the protected special in- 
terests will shut ofif campaign contributions. 

The corporations know that if the people can initiate is- 
sues and measures and force them to a vote, there will be Jegis- 
hiton to put a stop to the stock-watering system and "hieh- 
finance" manipulations which now furnish the excuse for poor 
service and high rates, charges or prices. 

The holders and beneficiaries of special privileges ' low 
that if the politicians who now grant and protect these privi- 
leges are shorn of power, there will be an end to special privi- 
lege and the privileged class. 

The favored classes now escaping their fair share of tax- 
ation through the favor of the politicians know they will have 
to pay fuirtaxes if the people are given a say in the matter. 

The grafters and boodlers know that under such a law 
they would have to represent the people or get out of office and 
out' of politics. There is no incentive for giving or takmg 
bribes where the people can compel the legislators to be honest. 



Who Oppose 
the BiU 



Why They 
Oppose It 



18 



A STOLEN GOVERNMENT 



You Can 
Help 



Question all 
Candidates 



The office-holders who do not represent the people, but 
who manage to hoodwink their constituents by pretending to 
do so, know they would have to come c.«t into the open and give 
the people what they want, if the people had the power to 
vote separately on measures. 

The reformers who want their own peculiar ideas en- 
acted into law and enforced without regard for the wishes of 
the majority, know that the Advisory Initiative would put an 
end to sumptuary laws and government by the minority, and 
would establish majority rule. 

All these interests, antagonistic to the common good, have 
strong influence in the party organizations and in the Legis- 
lature. If you want this bill passed you must help fight for 
it. Here are some of the ways you can help : 

Write to the Senator from your county. 

Write to the Assemblymen from your county. 

Write to the Governor. 

Tell these men you want the Public Opinion Law passed, 
and that you want them to help pass it. They all want your 
vote, and your influence with them is greater than you perhaps 
think it is. 

Tell your neighbors and friends about this fight and ask 
them to help. 

Join the People's Lobby, so you may be kept informed as to 
the progress of this fight and of other fights for the common good. 
Write to the Secretary for application blanks, and give them to 
your neighbors and friends. 

If the allied bosses and special interests defeat the bill this 
year, as they may, start right in for next year's fight. 

Write to all candidates for legislative office in your county 
this fall and ask them if they are for the Public Opinion bill. 
You will have two chances at them now- — one at the primaries, 
and one on election day. 

Let the candidates know you will not vote for them un- 
less they pledge themselves to support this measure. Ask 
your friends and neighbors to do the same. 

These men who ask for your vote are seeking to repre- 
sent you in making the laws for the State. You have a right 
to know where they stand. If they refuse to answer ques- 
tions, it is usually safe to take it for granted that they are against 
the people. 



Men Who 

Have 

Pledged 



Nineteen members of the 1908 Legislature were pledged to 
support and vote for this measure. 

In the 1907 campaigh the People's Lobby addressed ten 
questions to all legislative candidates. At the head of the list 
was the following question : 



HOW TO RBSTORB IT 



19 



"Will you, if elected, vote for and use your influence to 
secure the passage of a law that will give to the people of the 
State, or of any municipality, a right to have a direct and 
separate vote, in a general election, upon any public question 
or measure that may be petitioned for by ten per cent, of their 
number ; such vote to be regarded as purely advisory to the 
legislative body, and taken for the sole purpose of securing 
an expression of public opinion?" 

To this question nineteen members of the House of Assembly 
answered "Yes" above their signatures as follows : 

Essex County — Colgate, Hines, Lowrey, Martin, Morgan, 
Young. 

Hudson County — Daab, Hendrickson, Kenny, Sullivan, 
Tumulty. 

Ocean County — Crosby. 

Passaic County — Burpo, McCoid, Prince, Radcliiife, White- 
head. 

Union County— Kirstein. 

Warren County — Firth. 

It is up to the vcir^rs to see that these men keep their 
pledges. 

If they do not, it is up to the voters to see that they are 
succeeded in office by men who will keep faith with the people. 



You may have a hobby. Most men do. 

You may think some other question more immediately 
important than this. If so, you are mistaken. 

The Advisory Initiative makes easy the solution of all the 
problems in State politics. It is not in itself an end. It is_ a 
means to many ends. Whatever your pet hobby or favorite 
idea of reform, you will make better headway with your fight 
under the Advisory Initiative, if you are for a reform the 
people want and the bosses and special interests oppose. 

With the Advisory Initiative, or Public Opinion Law, in- 
stead of asking the polticians for favors the people will tell the 
politicians what they want. 

It's a favorite trick of the bosses and the special interests 
to side-track big and vital reforms by injecting side-issues. 
In every State where the people have stuck to the main issue 
and demanded the initiative and referendum in some form, they 
have won out. When they have obtained this reform f.. "t, they 
have easily secured the other reforms the majority have 
wanted. 

You can't build a house or make a watch without tools. 

The tools of government are now in the hands of the 
bosses and the special interests. 

The Advisory Initiative will give the people tools they can 
use without the help of the politicians. 



Don't Fool 

with 

Side Issues 



Tools to 
Work With 



20 A STOLEN GOVERNMENT 

You can't have popular government while the machinery of 
government is in the control of men and interests opposed to the 
people. 

The Advisory Initiative will make the government repre- 
sentative. 

Real representative government means government by the 
people, and government by the people means government for 
the people. 

Will you help to make the government of New Jersey 
representative? 

If you will, begin today by writing to your State Senator 
and Assemblymen, and to the Governor, demanding the pas- 
sage of the Public Opinion bill. 

If you haven't time to write to the Assemblymen, write 
to the Senator and the Governor. 

If -you will write onlv one letter, write to the Governor. 

If you don't know who your Senator and Assemblymen 
are, write to the Secretary of the People's Lobby and ask 
him to tell you. 

Talk it Over Here's another way to help. 

If you belong to a club, society or organization of any sort 
that is interested in public questions, bring this subject up at 
the next meetin<y and tell the other members about the fight 
now going on for representative government. Probably some 
of them have not heard of it. 

Ask your club, society or whatever the organization may 
be, to make the .\dvisory Initiative the subject for discussion 
at the next meeting, or to hold a special meeting for its con- 
sideration. 

Explain to the members what this ficht is for and what 
it means. Have the meeting adopt a resolution endorsing the 
bill and pledging its support to the People's Lobby in the fight, 
and send copies of the resolution to the Governor, to your 
Senator and Assemblvmen, and to the newspapers. If you 
don't want to take that trouble, send the resolution to the 
secretary of the People's Lobby, and he will see it gets to the 
lawmakers and the public. 

If you don't understand the subject well enough to ex- 
plain it clearly to your organizatiow, write to the secretary of 
of the Lobby and ask him t© send a speaker who does understand 
it to your meetin"-. 

This is your fight. 

Don't wait for somebodv else to do this work. 

Do it yourself, and do it now. 



cc t : ) 



HOW TO RBSTORB IT 



21 



Developments in the recent legislative life of the State have 
led those interested in its welfare to realize that in many instances 
undue influence, chiefl}^ undue corporate influence, has endangered 
the interests of the people of this State. To remedy this a 
People's Lobby has been formed. The entire membership of the 
Lobby has been formed into a General Committee with county 
branches. From this General Committee a Governing" Committee 
has been created in the formation of which the aim has been to 
represent fairl}- all sections of the State. 

The annual dues have been fixed at three dollars. 

The purposes of the People's Lobby will be to have its rep- 
resentatives present at the sessions of the Legislature, whose duty 
it will be to examine all bills offered and to see whether they 
fairly represent the interests of the people, or whether there be 
attached to them any incidental clauses, popularly known as 
"riders" or "jokers" and whether bills be conflicting or contra- 
distorjf, useless or useful, and to make these Bills known to the 
members of the Lobby and the public. 

Its second purpose is to suggest legislation and to secure 
from the people of the State at large, ideas which should be em- 
bodied in such legislation. 

Its third object is to compile records of officials and to sub- 
mit them to the people at stated times, and in general to supervise 
legislation at all points in the interests of good government. 



The Peoples 
Lobby of 
New Jersey — 
Its Objects 
and Purposes 



1st. A law establishing a full, verbatim, stenographic report 
of the proceedings of both Houses of the Legislature, and to 
secure the printing and distribution of the same. 

2nd. Adoption of the so-called "Oregon" system to allow 
the voter to indicate upon his ballot his choice for United States 
Senator. 

3rd. Constitutional amendments providing for an elective 
judiciary, prosecutors and heads of State Departments. 

4th. A competitive civil service for State and municipal em- 
ployees. 

5th. Direct nominations and the abolishment of delegate 
conventions. 

6th. The advisory initiative and referendum-. 

7th. A standing rule in both Houses, or constitutional 
amendment, requiring that all Committees shall report, and an 
open vote shall be had, on all bills introduced. 

8th. Ballot reform, based upon the principle of giving the 
fullest opportunity for independent voting. 



The 

Peoples Lobby 

Platform — 

Adopted 

December 

14, 1906 



c 



All proceeds from sales of this pamphlet will 
be used for printing- and distributing- addi- 
tional copies. 

vSing'le copies of this pamphlet will be sent, 
prepaid, to any address, upon receipt of ten 
cents ; ten copies, to single address or sepa- 
rate addresses, fifty cents ; fifty copies or 
more, to one address, three cents each; fifty 
copies or more, to separate addresses, four 
cents each. 

Order from Henry H. Dawson, Treasurer 
of the People's Lobby, 810 Broad Street, 
Newark, N. J. Send checks, bank drafts, 
postal money orders, paper money, silver or 
postage stamps. Mail money at our risk. 
We trust the post office. 



Peoples Lobby of New Jersey 
OFFICERS 



President 

R. HENRY DEPEW 

1019 Hillside Ave.. Plainfield, N. J. 

Secretary 

Pro Tern 

WALTER C. LINBARGER 

Nofth Plainfield, N. J. 

Treasurer 

HENRY H. DAWSON 

810 Broad Street. Newark. N. J. 

Actuary 

ADOLPH ROEDER 

80 Cleveland Street. Orange. N. J. 



Executive Committee 

The Officers, Ex-Officio 

Edtnond A. Whittier, East Orange, N. J 
Herman B. Walker. - Orange, N. J 

Dan Fellows Piatt, - Englewood, N. J 
Simon P. Northrup, - Newark, N. J 

George E. Cutley, " Jersey City. N. J 



NOV 6 1912 



**'' I ^HERE is just one issue before the country to-day. It is 
X not currency. It is not tariff. It is not railroad regu- 
lation. These and other important questions are but 
phases of one great conflict. Let no man think he is not in- 
terested. There is no remote corner of this country where 
the power of special interests is not encroaching on public 
rights. Let no man think this is a question of party politics. 
It strikes down to the very foundation of our free institutions. 
The System knows no party. It is supplanting government. 
Men back of the System seem to know not what they do. In 
their strife for more money, more power, more power, more 
money, there is no time for thought, for reflection. They look 
neither forward nor backward. Government, society and 
the individual are swallowed up in the-struggle for greater 
control. The plain man living the wholesome life of peace 
and contentment has a better perspective, a saner judgment. 
He has ideals and conscience and human emotion. Home, 
children, neighbors, friends, church, schools, country, con- 
stitu;^ life. He knows very definitely the conditions affecting 
the rights guaranteed hitn by the Constitution, but he Icngs 
for expression; he longs for leadership. This makes plain 
the powerful hold of President Roosevelt and Mr. Bryan- 
upon the confidence and affection of the American people. 
This makes plain why the President and Mr. Bryan each 
have, not the Republican party alone, not the Democratic 
party alone, but the whole people in sympathy with their 
purposes. Whatever i:he difference in party policy, whatever 
the difference in personality, they are striving, each in his 
own way, for certain fundamental truths that the American 
people demand shall be settled right, and shall be settled 
soon." — Speech of Senator Robert M. LaFollette, in United 
States Senate, March 24, 1903. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



012 051 723 5 O 



